Just when you think the bounty story has run its course, it abruptly reverses course and gathers renewed momentum. It's the story that won't die, the bad movie that never gets to the credits. In the past 48 hours alone, the story's narrative has taken more twists and turns than the lower Mississippi. A day after NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell stood firm in his position on the scandal, word leaked that he has offered to reduce the yearlong suspension to New Orleans Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma in exchange for ending litigation against Goodell. So what gives here?

TED JACKSON / THE TIMES-PICAYUNENew Orleans Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma leaves Federal Court Thursday July 26, 2012 where he is seeking a temporary restraining order to allow him to continue to work while his lawsuit against Roger Goodell is pending.

Is the NFL offering an olive branch to show mercy on the players in hopes of reaching a resolution?

Or is this the NFL's way of waving a white flag, a sign the league lacks confidence in its case going forward?

Most likely, it's a little of both.

The NFL clearly is ready for this story to end. It's dominated the headlines for five months, in part because of the ham-fisted way it's been handled by both sides. The last thing the league wants is for bountygate to stretch into the fall and winter. Goodell said as much on Saturday night.

"I think (the Saints) want to move on and get back to focusing on football and moving forward," Goodell said to NFL.com. "I understand that, we all do. We all want to get back to playing football."

So maybe this settlement offer -- or alleged offer, if you believe the NFL's denial -- is the league's way of creating a soft landing for this contentious battle before the real games begin.

Maybe, just maybe, the league is softening its stance a little in a gesture of reconciliation.

That's one way of looking at it.

Another is to see surrender. Why else would the NFL, after months of taking the players to the mats, suddenly offer leniency? Could this legal retreat be an effort to prevent their shaky case from being exposed in a court of law?

Regardless of where you stand on the bounty issue, it's difficult to justify yearlong suspensions for any of the involved parties.

MICHAEL DeMOCKER / THE TIMES-PICAYUNEOn the football field at Roswell Kent Middle School in Akron, Ohio, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell listens to questions from Times-Picayune reporters about the punishments he meted out in the Saints bounty scandal. He was on hand to help present 125 youth football players from the Akron Parent Pee Wee Football League with new and safer helmets, replacing older ones in an effort to promote player safety on Saturday, August 4, 2012.

If the league's goal in this case was to end the underground bounty practice and send a message to its constituency, it could have done so with equal effectiveness by issuing lesser suspensions.

Trust me, no one is going to run a bounty program in the NFL after witnessing this white-hot mess.

Somewhere along the way, the whole thing devolved into a battle of egos, a high-stakes clash of personalities and bravado.

While the NFL talks resolutely about the strength of its case publicly, behind closed doors there appears to be an unsettling sense of uncertainty as the legal battle intensifies.

Goodell sounded confident as ever on Saturday night when he told NFL.com, "Listen, the facts are clear. There was a bounty system in place. They've admitted it, even in court, that they were paying players when they were carted off the field. That's not what football's all about. We don't reward players for hurting people or taking them off the field, and that's a bounty. And there are accusations even beyond that. So, it's clear this was in place, and we're not going to tolerate it. That's not good for the health of the players or the game itself."

Still, he knows such things are open to interpretation. A federal judge might not see the issue as definitively as Goodell does, which could lead to a protracted legal battle spanning months, even years.

No one, not even the deep-pocketed NFL, wants that. After StarCaps and the labor lockout, the league hoped this year would be a quiet one on the legal front. So much for that.

Both sides would be wise to reach a resolution this week and move forward. It's in the best interests of everyone.

Word is Vilma, though, is taking no prisoners. He wants no part of a settlement. I hear he wants the entire case vacated by the federal court and won't stop until his record and name are completely cleared.

However, most legal experts believe Vilma's chances of winning a defamation suit remain dubious at best. He might win a temporary injunction, but his chances of total victory are remote.

It'd be in his best interest to take the settlement and run.

For everyone involved, it makes common sense to find common ground.

•••••••

Jeff Duncan can be reached at jduncan@timespicayune.com or 504.826.3404.